Q: Hello, Mr. Porter, may we commence with the most
typical question possible: could you please introduce yourself swiftly to our
readership?

A: As far as I know I am the only person who ever read the
Nuremberg Trial transcript all the way through, not once, but several times. I
have three different versions of it. I also have the complete Tokyo Trial
transcript, 52,000 pages.

I have an Internet site,
www.cwporter.com, with 900 files on war crimes and Nuremberg, including 600
graphics: scans of actual pages from the Nuremberg Trial transcript, scans of
the so-called “original” Nuremberg Trial documents, and translations. People
quote these things, but they never look at them. Some of these documents have
never even translated before. These are documents which most historians have
never seen. I have thousands of dollars worth of law books, criminal law,
international law, and I have written a number of articles on international law
(for example,
http://www.cwporter.com/wctrial.htm,
http://www.cwporter.com/cc1.htm,
http://www.cwporter.com/warcrim45.htm.

Nuremberg is not valid law. Nothing in international law gives
the victor power to legislate in international law. Most of the post-war trials
had no basis in law; I don’t know of any offhand that did. Maybe some of the
minor Japanese trials. But I doubt it.
In 1900, Britain invaded the Boer Republics, stole the gold mines, turned the
Western Transvaal into a “smoking desert” (in their own words), imprisoned
110,000 women and children in concentration camps where 28,000 of them died,
then, after the war, they tried and shot 2 Boer officers for “misusing a flag of
truce”! You’re wasting your time looking for justice in any post-war trial. They
are simply a continuation of the war.

Q: If I am not mistaken your first publication ‘Made
in Russia: The Holocaust’ deals with the grotesque exaggerations of the Allies
concerning the so-called “judeocide”. Could you name a few?

- Steam people to death like lobsters in 10
steam chambers at Treblinka; - Zap them to death with mass electrical shocks;
- Blast them into the twilight zone with atomic bombs; - Beat people to death, then carry out autopsies to see why they died;
- Force people to climb trees, then cut the trees down; - Kill 840,000 Russian Pows at Sachsenhausen, and burn the bodies in 4
portable ovens; - Bash people's brains in with a pedal-driven brain-bashing machine while
listening to the radio, then burn the bodies in 4 portable ovens; - Torture and execute people in time to music at the Yanov camp in Russia;
- Shoot every member of the orchestra;- Grind the bones of millions of people in portable bone-grinding
machines; - Grind the bones of 200 bodies [¾ ton] at one time, as described in
photographs and documents which have disappeared;- Study bone grinding in special 10-day crash-course seminars;
- Whup people with special spanking machines; (Note that photographs of German leaders, concentration camps, etc.,
are in full supply, but that photos of bone grinders, portable ovens, etc., have all disappeared)
- Make lampshades of human skin; - Cut people's heads off and then shrink them -- make pocketbooks and
driving gloves for SS officers out of human skin; - Paint pornographic pictures on canvasses made of human skin;
- Bind books in human skin; - Make saddles, riding breeches, gloves, house slippers, and ladies
handbags out of human skin; - Drive Jews to cannibalism in all those freight cars;
- More "scientific experiments" - another ridiculous accusation -
- another bizarre hallucination - - another example of German efficiency;
- Torture people in specially mass-produced "torture boxes" made by Krupp;
- Kill people for sleeping in their underwear;- Kill people for wearing dirty underwear;
- Wear underwear stolen from gassed persons; - (didn't they have any underwear in Germany?)
- Kill people for having armpit hair;- Stuff chairs with human hair; - (an objection from defendant Göring)
- Make socks out of human hair; - (actually, the correct translation should be hair-yarn "booties" for
U-boat crews) - Collect seven tons of hair for human sock making; - Collect 293 hair bales (net weight seven thousand kilograms) at
Auschwitz for mattress stuffing and making hair socks; - Gas them to death, then destroy the bodies with quicklime at
Auschwitz;Use human ashes for repairing the roads; - Mix human ashes with manure and sell it;
- Burn human bodies using human fat for fuel; - Burn human bodies using no fuel at all after removing them from the
gas chambers without wearing gas masks; - Burn 80,000 bodies in 2 old ovens;
- Burn human bodies in holes dug in a swampy plain which is frozen in January where it rains and snows constantly and there is mud everywhere;
- (what did they do when it was raining?) - Kill people with poisoned soft drinks;
- Shoot 135,000 people in Smolensk and bury them Katyn-style; - Shoot 200,000 people in the Lisenitz forest;
- Using the same methods of concealment they used at Katyn, etc. etc.?See also
Book ReviewsBarbara Kulaska (defender of Ernst Zündel) on "NOT GUILTY AT NUREMBERG",
1992--

Q: Did this ironical approach work?

A: In a sense it worked perfectly, because there is no
possible answer. The only way to deal with that kind of thing -- if you want to
consider Nuremberg valid law at all -- is simply to ignore the whole book. So it
has been ignored. Apart from one or two ridiculous and mendacious attempts to
“explain” the use of “atomic bombs to exterminate Jews at Auschwitz” (for
example,
http://www.h-ref.de/literatur/r/remer/zeit-luegt.php), the book has been
almost entirely ignored. They can’t answer it, so they pretend it doesn’t exist.
In that way it failed.

Q: Furthermore it seems that tons of the original
Holocaust accounts (soap, lamp shades, electric plates,...) on which we were
examined in school now go unaccounted for.

A: You mean the original documents have all disappeared, and
in most cases there is no proof that the original documents ever even existed?
That is correct. There are lovely “texts” to quote, but no original document.
Look at the “Bullet Order” (http://www.cwporter.com/ps1650.html).
The document is illegible, so where did the “official translation” come from?
Answer: they translated it first, then forged the document afterwards. Even then
it is a botch. All the main documents are like this: worthless. Of course, if
it’s an accusation nobody cares about, like “manipulating the currency in Iran”,
then you get a very nice document, with signatures and all sorts of goodies. But
even then, in most cases, the original has disappeared. I also reproduced dozens
of documents from Jean-Claude Pressac (for example,
http://www.cwporter.com/undocs.htm and
http://www.cwporter.com/verg.htm.

Q: Your second book ‘Not Guilty at Nuremberg’
furthermore dug up some of the official court documents. What was your final
conclusion: necessary justice or mere Siegerjustiz in which the
conqueror enslaves his conquered lands?

A: N.G., or NOT GUILTY AT NUREMBERG,
http://www.cwporter.com/innocent.htm, available in six eight languages including Portuguese and
Spanish [and now
Russian and
Roumanian!!!], was an attempt to outline the defense
arguments and point out any legal irregularities not covered by M.I.R.T.H. (MADE
IN RUSSIA – THE HOLOCAUST), with approximately 1,000 references. There was no
conclusion; it was just an outline. N.G. in Spanish is available in good Spanish
in book form.

Q: What were the driving forces and goals behind these
projects?

A: You mean the trials? To continue the war by other means.
They even said so. Robert Jackson said so. Justice Douglas of the US Supreme
Court said these trials were a matter of “naked political power” (source: 1966
Collier’s Encyclopedia, “War Crimes Trials”). Incidentally, the whole concept of
postwar reparations and war crimes trials was invented by two Jews from the
World Jewish Congress BEFORE THE ALLEGED HOLOCAUST EVEN STARTED (source: THE
JEWISH PARADOX by Nahum Goldman, Grosset and Dunlap, pp. 122-124; you have to
read between the lines a little bit). The original idea was to milk the Germans
because the crybaby heebies “lost their property” and so on. They had a
financial incentive to invent atrocities -- while millions of others died, in a
war THEY declared, on March 24, 1933, for the first time, and repeatedly
thereafter. Wars are Jews’ harvests.

Q: You also made a comparison with the other alleged
war crimes of the 20th century. Is there a consistent line? Can a comparison
between Japanese, Serb, German, Israeli,... war crimes be made?

A: As far as I know, there are no exceptions. Nuremberg is not
valid law, and none of these trials have any value whatsoever. Look at Serbia.
Clinton bombs the hell out of Afghanistan, Serbia and Irak to distract attention
from Monica Lewinski, so Milosovic is a “war criminal”! I admire Milosovic: he
treated the Hague court with the contempt which it deserves and is defending
himself very well, acting as his own lawyer. Lawyers are useless in these
things: they are not aggressive enough. I had one, and he quit before I could
fire him.

Q: In 1998 you were convicted before a German court to
a certain amount. Could you fill us in on the details?

A: On April 25, 1995, a former member of the Wehrmacht (not
the SS), Reinhold Elstner, burnt himself to death at the Feldhernhalle in Munich
to protest what he called the “Niagara of lies” flooding over Germany.

"Reinhold Elstner, 25 April 1995: Your
Death is Our Beacon of Hope"
--

The Munich police actually had the shamelessness to arrest
people for placing wreathes on the spot and to remove all the burn marks with a
blow torch. In protest, I sent over 200 copies of NICHT SCHULDIG IN NÜRNBERG (www.cwporter.com/nggerm.htm)
to Germany, with a protest letter, one to every important newspaper, magazine
and politician in the country, to Helmut Kohl, Richard Weizäcker and five others
by registered mail, to make sure they got it. The Mayor of Munich, Christian
Ude, got his knickers in a twist and the result was 17 months of so-called
“legal proceedings”, during which I told them more or less to bugger off. Of
course, I was polite about it: I said,
“I defy your authority and I refuse to comply with any order to do anything.”
In the end, they dropped it.

Q: We were told you are a stateless person.

A: I have been a stateless person since November 8, 1984, that
is correct.

Q: Is the newly installed European extradition arrest a threat to you,
as it is to Siegfried Verbeke?

A: The whole concept of unilaterally declared universal
jurisdiction is illegal and unworkable. What I want to know is, whose laws take
precedence? If Mexico claimed that Mexican law applied in Guatemala, and
Guatemala claimed that Guatemalan law applied in Mexico, the result would be a
war, after which the victor would impose its own laws on the vanquished. Are
Israel and Germany going to go to war against the whole world? Or is a worldwide
dictatorship (for example, the so-called “EEC”) going to rewrite all the world’s
laws so they are all the same? That’s what they want, actually; in the
crazy-house of the EEC, it is considered a huge problem if the rims on plastic
cups in Denmark are different from the rims on plastic cups in, say, Italy; same
with taps, faucets, and everything else in existence. I’ve translated all their
junk, I know what they’re up to. The whole SYSTEM is a threat to me. It’s a
threat to everybody in the world.

Q: Who are rather what inspired you to become a
holocaust revisionist “holocaust denier” in the judeo-Orwellian sense?

A: No comment, except that the concept of “denial” is very
revealing psychologically. It’s also a semantic trick.

Q: What makes you withstand the repression, whereas thousands of others would
already have given up?

A: I am astonished at the assumption that I have done anything
extraordinary at all. What are we afraid of? What can they do to us? Are they
going to burn us at the stake? Are they going to burn a hole in our tongues with
a red-hot iron? Are they going to put us to work felling timber at 60 degrees
below zero in the Arctic Circle 14 hours a day for 20 years and then shoot us in
the back of the head? The witchcraft mania of the Middle Ages lasted 500 years;
Communism lasted 70 years, and reports of its death have been greatly
exaggerated.

Q: How do you see the future of historical revisionism
evolving?

A: Assuming that revisionism represents the truth, which I
believe is the case, it will continue, regardless of what happens to any
individual revisionist. It’s like the Copernican system of astronomy. We have
only scratched the surface, and it only just beginning. Did the science of
astronomy come to an end with Copernicus, just because the astronomers of the 16
th century ran out of ideas or didn’t have a Hubble Telescope?

Q: I think Faurisson once stated: “the future belongs
to revisionism, alas not to the revisionists”, implying that the war on the
publication level would be won, but that the state and its judeo-liberal class
would do anything to prevent dissident shaping.

A: Even that’s not true. There are limits to what they can do,
or are willing to do – so far. In Elizabethan England, dissidents actually had
their hands, ears and/or noses cut off. Titus Oates
[actually, I was thinking of William Prynne] had his ears cut off, in
several bits, right down to the nub; one of the Protestant martyrs was burnt at
the stake at Smithfield in front of his wife and 10 children. European jails are
relatively comfortable. So far. As things stand now, if they want to torture
you, they have to say you’re a Moslem.

Q: One of the more recent evolutions we sense in the
revisionist movement is that of a certain fatigue: almost everything has already
been written to a certain extent, so we see renowned revisionists applying their
wit and technique on other more recent events: Zundel on 9/11, Irving on current
affairs, etc.

A: Living on the same planet with the Jews is like living with
a brat that throws tantrums. They never engage in logical analysis or factual
argument; they just turn up the volume on their temper tantrums: 100 decibels,
200 decibels, 400, a thousand, a million… In the end, either you puke up and
kill them or you get out of the house. It is unrealistic to expect the same
people to go on having original ideas year after year. Most people are lucky to
have one original idea, just one. The Leuchter Report was an original idea; the
Rudolf Report was an original idea, somewhat less so; the Ball Report was
entirely original. So was the Richard Krege Report (ground radar at Treblinka).
Just because we’ve run out of ideas personally doesn’t mean the whole process
will come to a halt. It’s like the famous, perhaps apocryphal, story of a
proposition to abolish the US Patent Office in the mid-1880s on the grounds that
“everything had already been invented”. I actually remember people talking about
“post-revisionism”, on the grounds that “everything had been said”, as early as
15 years ago, in Brussels, in 1989! That’s ridiculous.

Q: Do you follow these steps also?

A: Yes. The universe is a unified whole. I have written many
articles on subjects other than gas chambers: interest rates, exchange rates,
the money supply, central banking, slavery, the Confederacy, Communism,
Catholicism, abortion, the Gulf War, Rhodesia and South Africa, La Guerra de las
Malvinas, the I.R.A., Cuba, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, etc. But the fact
remains that the ONLY thing people care about is the existence or non-existence
of the gas chambers. Other things are actually more important, but they don’t
care.

Q: Is it wise that revisionists take certain political
points of view, given the already repeated portrayal in the media as “Neo-nazi
nuts”?

A: The evidence for the genocide of the Jews is probably 75%
Communist propaganda. Just look at the footnotes in almost any book on the
subject. Does that mean our enemies are Communists?

Q: What are your future projects?

A: Maybe I’ll be shot in the head getting on a train.
Unfortunate accident. Of course, the police have to make split-second decisions,
you know.